Talk:UH-144 Falcon

This is not a "tilt-rotor"

The rotors are so long that they would clip the fuselage and/or the cockpit if they even tried to tilt. And if the engines were even capable of being tilted forward, an over-eager door-gunner would immediately mess up the propeller if he or she aimed toward the front. It's a glorified, poorly designed helicopter that's trying to make a futuristic equivalent of the MH-6 Little Bird and failing.

Look at the designation: "UH-144". Do a google search on the UH-60 and the MH-6. Then do a search on the MV-22. If you haven't seen the obvious difference by now, here's the answer: the tilt-rotor's designation includes the letter "V" followed by a number. The helicopters have an "H" in the designation, followed by a number. Plus, if you watch the trailers, the engines do not move. --75.85.156.162 04:53, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Guess what, the engines DO move in the trailer, take a clooose look when it lands, they move. When they're flying, they're tilted forward slightly. And the guns may not aim forwards, only side and back, the nose gun probably deals with the front. As for the deignation? You gotta remember, this is 500 odd years in the future, things change. --~Enlightment~ ~Fighting Vandalism and Watching Unregistereds~ 09:10, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a helicopter, it acts like a helicopter. It's a helicopter, all right. After watching a higher quality version of the trailer, I will admit that I saw the engine nacelles move, but they didn't even approach the horizontal position. They only tilted forward a bit so that the aircraft could move forward (most helicopters can do something to this effect, obviously). If it were a real tilt-rotor, they would have gone fully horizontal to get where they were going--flying around with the rotors up like that would be a waste of fuel on a craft that doesn't appear to have much fuel capacity, let alone carrying capacity. It also would eliminate the point of the craft being a tilt-rotor. Plus, they seemed to be in a hurry to get somewhere. The side guns are still useless, and I'm not even going to touch the chin-mounted gun. It's just a terrible design.

How is it a terrible design? Given, it wasn't meant to be a real helicopter, it's just a game after all, but I don't see what the problem with the dual rotor design is? It removes the need for a tail rotor and with 500 years of advancement perhaps it can even carry more weight and reach higher speeds than modern helicopters. The Sikorsky style of helicopter isn't the de facto best design. Just the most developed. Hitodama 07:49, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Who said the Sikorsky style was best? Irrelevant tangent aside, at least the MV-22 Osprey can seat two-dozen passengers in the rear compartment. It's just surprising that, with the trove of vaunted technology and resources available to them "in the future", that they would choose such an inefficient and implausible craft over improving a better, pre-existing aircraft developed five centuries prior. And no, "it's in the future" is not a valid excuse. Not without, at least, something to provide a little plausibility. Otherwise, it's just a cop-out. Yes, it's a game. But this (among other elements in the Halo universe, I'm finding) is still implausible and ridiculous. And by "dual rotor", I assume you mean "transverse rotor." Look up Kamov. Yeah. Co-axial, counter-rotating rotors. It's a much smaller target that's harder to hit from the ground (unless it's flying really low). It also provides more relatively more lift. Sure, it's complicated, but so are the engine nacelles on tilt-rotors. It also lets the heli fly sideways. Look up the Ka-50 Black Shark (NATO codename: "Hokum A"). 24.165.43.22 00:31, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The designation? While bureaucratic military procurement pencil-pushers are prone to arbitrarily changing naming conventions and designations, I doubt they'd consider all tilt-rotors to fall under the same category as conventional helicopters. Tilt-rotors tend to be more sophisticated and complicated (more moving parts in the nacelles, alone), and I doubt every branch or unit in the UNSC will have access to such invaluable assets, even with the UNSC's runaway military budget. But I digress. The point is, if they lumped tilt-rotors in with helos, it would confuse the poor paper-pushers in logistics, and you'd have that many more screw-ups in supply stores. Future or no. 66.8.150.107 02:53, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Its

“

The aircraft's crew consists of one pilot, and it's armament includes a pilot-controlled chin-mounted Chain Gun and two door-mounted Machine Guns. It can carry up to four personnel in the troop bay.

”

You used the wrong its. Should be "its" (without apostrophe).—This unsigned comment was made by Gastropod (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Fixed.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:48, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

This should be added to the Trivia section, In the "Art of Halo 3" book, there was a concept art for a vehicle very similar in shape and design to this vehicle. On pg. 45 on the bottom right side of the page a vehicle bears the same shape minus the wings which in the actual trailer had been turned into two rotors. In the back, it is credited as a "Hornet/Gunship Early concept painting - Issac Hannaford." This is just another example of cancelled concept art that has been re purposed /brought back into a new game.

• Note*: I'm not scanning it because of copyright issues.—This unsigned comment was made by SpartansOnFire (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

It is somewhat similar in terms of the main body of the aircraft, but there are notable differences such as the wings, the rear wings (don't know what it's called, I'm no aerospace specialist) and the absent of propellers.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:30, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "ailerons". - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:32, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

*Wikipedia Time* :P - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:38, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the word is "elevators". Elevators are part of the tail assembly and control pitch. Ailerons are on the wings, and are what allow the aircraft to roll. Flaps are usually there to either help the aircraft brake during landing, or to help the aircraft get airborne during take-off. Rudders are on the vertical stabilizers (part of the tail assembly), and control yaw. --75.85.156.162 04:33, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawk Tiltrotor?

I would like to add to the trivia. that when you watch the scene in the VGA world premiere of Halo Reach when The LT. gets out of the Warthog and is walking by the Tiltrotor if you pay attention to the rear wings on the tilt rotor you can see a decal of a Black Bird (hawk Maybe). I don't know it might just be pretty cool to have it in there. Bacon11 20:41, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay you noticed the decal too, though I thought it maybe looked like a falcon?

Traditionaly tail decals consist of squadron patches and identification of the base/carrier the plane belongs to-since this appears to be an animal it's probobly a squadron patch or something like that, it doesn't mean that the aircraft is nicknamed "blackhawk"--Navypilot1046 02:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

they do seem alot like black hawks though,2 side machine guns, a troop bay, the norm transport. I also said to my friends its the "halo Black hawk".SPARTAN-III leader 03:39, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

economic

Thinking about it it probably is a great deal more economic than hornets and pelicans. pelicans are huge and are designed to carry alot, sometimes more than you need. and hornets are small and can carry only so musc, also the rotors are more economic than ducted fans, dispite having less power, and also doesn't require the power of the jets from the pelican. but you'd think they'd get something more advance than a couple of propellers 542 years into the future.Laghing rabt 22:29, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Everthing about the humans stands for utilitarian, industrialism. Vehicles that aren't fancy, but get the job done, and don't cost too much. ~Enlightment~ ~Fighting Vandalism and Watching Unregistereds~ 20:31, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe why these havent been featured in the other halo games is because these were only designed to transport spartans only, and as they were being wiped out, the UNSC chose to transport the reamaining spartans (i.e 117) on regular transport to save resources for weapons and construction. User:Matt98 18:01 Febuary 13th 2010 (UTC)

Since when does the UNSC care about efficiency? The Warthog is the UNSC equivalent of the American HMMWV. It doesn't carry much, is ill-suited for counter-insurgency operations (which is pretty confusing, given that the UNSC has been dealing with insurrectionists for the past few centuries), and there are better vehicular designs out there for about the same size and cost --75.85.156.162 04:39, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well thinking about it they could use it in the Marines. It looks cheap and easy to build so they could use it in large numbers. In Vietnam we made the Huey cheap and easy to build and it's still used by Marines and Army. So his could be like the Huey of Halo. Have a whole bunch of these just swarm over the Covenant just like Hueys over 'Nam. Anyway maybe the Pelicans were just cargo types like Chinooks, b/c we don't see them in large numbers. (smith rules)

The Un-Halo Factor

I agree with you this thing looks ancient compared to the hornet It looks like they just took this from avatar (or maybe avatar stole it IDK which came first.) or something this should go under all the halo wars veichles that suck (Rhino, Cyclops, Sparrow Hawk) why did the cancle the Cougar Bungie should've used Esmebelle's Falcon concept art but repursed it for medium transport veichle—This unsigned comment was made by Colonel Skyes (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I think The Ensembelle Falcon should be used as The Hornets is a Gunship. They should call the Reach Falcon the Kestrel doesnt that sound appropriate?

What Bungie Should've Used [1] this is the falcon I think they should use—This unsigned comment was made by Colonel Skyes (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

looks cool. I like the idea of a cheap aircraft.101stranger 23:36, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I like this direction, feels much more war-like and desperate with more downgraded tech. I like the variety too, who needs another Pelican? -TheLostJedi 01:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Also has anyone noticed how the Falcon looks very similar to the ships used in James Cameron's Avatar?--ASEC 10:02, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ye, wonder if it was copied and if so by whom ??--Fipas 11:07, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Read this article and then watch this interview. >.> - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 15:07, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

I like who that shut every one up, the movie Avatar was originally written in 1994.Laghing rabt 17:31, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

2 of these things?

From the images i have seen floating around the net of the GI article it looks like the Falcon shown is different from those in the trailer. The one [on page 58 i believe if anyone has it to hand] under the guns in the article doesn't seem to have the rotor blades, the chin mounted gun is further back, troop compartment looks slightly different and its grey in colour.

I think it only looks like that because of it being a picture they had to downsize it to fit into the page, but as for the color, it may have just faded a bit. ---"We are not backing down now. Besides, I dont like losing, remember?" Eli-027 23:10, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. You can see the position of the gun is different to the one in the article and the all important rotors aren't there.

Classius 17:10, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Will these feature in the multiplayer? aka.Please say we get to fly these...

would it not be awesome if at last we get to use a large flying transport vehicle? in halo Cust.Ed. it was always fun to ride a pelican put it was very glitchy and you always fell through the floor :( I think its time we see some BIG halo multiplayer battles...--62.171.198.11 08:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC) some person on the internet

According to the latest Bungie Weekly Update (1/29/2010), we WILL be able to "Pilot" them. i hope that makes you happy! ----"We are not backing down now. Besides, I dont like losing, remember?" Yugiohtipman34 00:48, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, this is the closest we'll ever get to flying a pelican!FatalSnipe117 03:47, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

It is most likely using the Hornet movement mechanics: Pilot would be able to move the Falcon similar like the Hornet. The only update Bungie added to this "Hornet" object is the passenger's ability to use the mounted MGs.外国人^(7alk) 04:10, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the Falcon is playable in both Campaign and Multiplayer, it should be noted in the article.Warhead xTEAMx 16:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

There would be lots of problems if the falcon was driveable in multiplayer. For one, if your pilot quit the game, or your entire team is in the falcon, and you get lasered or "blown up". That would mean an easy multi-kill.Great Admiral Cole 01:13, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's part of the risk in using it. Que Sera, Sera 03:47, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing it will take two Laser shots so everyone could jump out. OverseerTange 03:42, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Could this be Army?

Think about it for a second here. The Marines would be unlikely to use this thing... they operate from Starships after all and this thing is not space capable. Now... the "Army" operating on planets for the most part could be more likely to use this thing in much the same capacity as modern Helicopters are used. --VhenRa 06:39, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

The UH-144 Falcon aircraft we see in Halo: Reach are operated by VMX-22, a UNSC Marine Corps test and evaluation squadron. User:CommanderTony/Sig

He has a point. What good would propelers/rotors be in space? FatalSnipe117 03:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

the marines could always lend that unit to the army for the testing of this helicopter since we didnt see a lot im thinking its a prototype

or it could be an army unit of the same nameAdmiralmorris 16:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Economic transport

“

It is likely a more economical troop transport and gunship compared to the D77-TC Pelican Dropship, and even the AV-14 Hornet

”

UH=Utility Helicopter. They could've possibly modified it for military use, but then again, I'd assume the designation would be different. If it were a troop transport, it would be designated as CH, like the Chinook helicopter. Dropships would still fit into transports, I believe. Ground supports are designated with an A(AC-130), and gunships are fitted for that role. Well, that or Bungie made another mistake in naming military equipment. At least I hope this'd be the last one. Or maybe it has a different role other than those of the Pelican, since it isn't designated "ACH-144".PX173

Oh wait... U is for utility, according to military nomenclature. Perhaps it's for delivering supplies and resources? PX173 14:09, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like the ones in Black Hawk Down. Multirole I would assume.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 19:48, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Concept Art is Always Cooler

On the Halo Reach ViDoc "Once More into the Breech" (if that's what it's called)Bungie shows the Falcon in concept art and it looks SO cool. It looks like a cross between a Pelican and a Hornet and it's not powered by those tilt rotar fans either. it looks great! but then they had to put the crappy tilt rotars. Bungie, you really disappointed me this time around. :(

Oh, the propellers were there. They were just cut away so you could see behind them. They do that alot in vehicles that have wings or pods. I'm enjoying the design. Hitodama 19:12, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Falcon Image

Got a Falcon image from Bungie.net:

From here: [2] It's titled "Falcon 2". Chris-015 17:39, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Four in the troop bay, two gunners, one pilot?

So does that mean that the Falcon can carry a maximum of seven players? -TheLostJedi 21:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

That's a Spicy Meatball, It could carry a whole Team In Big Team Battle (most likely) but, Seeing Its bungie, Its probably 1 Player In Troop Bay, 2 In Gunner, and 1 in Pilot, 4 Players overall, thats my Guess though 69.221.147.179 17:54, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

It is confirmed in OXM that it will carry 5,2 gunners,one pilot,two cargo bay.-Sig753 20:27 July 20 2010 (UTC)

Designation/economic transport WTF?!

(Yeah I've seen the guys arguing up there, but I'd not join their topic) Umm... why is it designated UH? This is clearly not a helicopter, it's more like a small osprey with jet engines. It would make more sense as UV-144. Yeah, I know, things change, but the Hornet kept with today's designation system. I know the Pelican didn't, but you see, it's designation format was well different, and this has a mission letter, an aircraft type letter, and a series number. And in my opinion, the reason the rotors don't tilt directly forward, aside from the blades being too long as somebody else said, is that this thing doesn't seem to be capable of creating lift by itself. Also, what's with the buzz about it being an economic transport? Just because this is 500 years into the future doesn't mean people should stop being practical. What use is a jet engine if you're just going to make it face downward? If you want a VTOL so badly then there are a LOT of other ways. That's the Hornet. As for the Pelican, it either uses jet engines or rocket fuel, but heck, it can't even fly that fast, I'm pretty sure a Chinook would do better. Why do you suppose most people use ordinary hammers and not automated machines to drive a nail? If you say "but we're in a financial crisis", well, they're in a war, and in a much larger crisis. The Pelican and Hornet might have been developed before the war, but why waste money and fuel on such an overkill? If I'm wrong, I guess people, mostly in the military, in 2552 just say "we have lots, so who cares". 125.60.241.224 04:33, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

All your points are excellent. The 'H' type letter exists because it is a helicopter, despite its obvious similarities to the Osprey. If the nacelles tilted forward, or if it had some other means of forward propulsion like a pusher, then it would be logical to change that H to a V. The U stands for utility, and is used for the Falcon because this is a light, versatile helicopter, much like the Huey and Blackhawk. Economically speaking, the Falcon seems like a poor choice. I conjecture that not enough funds/time were available to deliver Pelicans to the frontlines, so the Falcon remained the primary method of aerial transportation. Speaking from an aerodynamic perspective, the Falcon appears to make poor use of its turboprops. Even modern day helicopters have rear-facing exhaust stacks.

I have no clue why the Pelican is a 'D77-TC' and not a CV-XX, a more logical alphanumeric label. The current label looks like it came from Star Wars, since TC = Troop Carrier just as nearly every abbreviation stands for the machine's mission (AT-AT = All-Terrain Attack Transport I believe). But it does fly pretty fast, and I believe it was determined that it used rocket fuel, as you don't see to many intakes on the hull, and the Pelican is capable of sublight flight, albeit for a small duration, so it must use rocket fuel or some other derivative at least part of the time. The Hornet and Falcon use turboprops and thus jet fuel. The Chinook would by no means do better, nostalgic intent aside.   ΘяɪɸɴF22    Me    Talk    Contributions    CAG   04:47, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I suppose Chinooks would be more inefficient. Although, I see no reason to use rocket fuel in an atmosphere, and also there are air intakes above, though I seriously doubt those wouldn't take in enough air and get them to the combustion chambers(I'd assume each nacelle has a different combustion chamber), and provide enough thrust to keep the Pelican from losing lift. I always thought the Pelican used downward thrust to keep it in the air, though there doesn't seem to be any visible exhaust. Also, if the Hornets use turboprops, where's the 'prop' part as in 'propeller'? But I'm getting off topic. The point is, though the Falcon was, from my perspective, generally welcomed in a good way by the fans, there's been a little mix-up as to what it is exactly, aside from a troop transport. Some say it's a tiltrotor, some say it's a V/STOL(like me), some say it's an economic transport, and some much less notable ones. I'm not saying that these are all in one field(e.g. tiltrotor in operation, economic transport in role/purpose) though. 125.60.241.224 05:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

The rocket fuel, for all we know, may be a more efficient means of propulsion than jet fuel. Yes, the Pelican does have intakes located at the main nacelle roots, but those could not provide enough airflow to the fans for enough combustion. The Halo 3 Pelican has about 3 times more intakes, most of which are located on the rear winglets and nacelles. It appears that this would provide adequate airflow. Yes, each nacelle has its own combustion chamber. The downward thrust is used for VTOL, and can be seen on the bottom of each nacelle. In the first two games, there are two exhaust stacks on the bottoms of the main nacelles, and one on each of the minor nacelles. Forward propulsion is accomplished by switching the direction of the exhaust from the downward facing nacelles to the aft facing nacelles, with two such exhaust stacks on every nacelle. The nacelles rotate to assist in directional control. It has been debated, but the general consensus seems to be that the Pelican must use some lifting body principles to sustain flight, as its wings could not provide enough lift as they are. One will notice that the downward facing stacks do not assist in keeping it aloft once in flight (watch a Pelican in Halo: CE. When it lands, the downward stacks are operating. IT then hovers up by using them, and when it starts to move forward, the amount of exhaust sent to the downward stacks slowly decreases, and the amount sent to the aft stacks gradually increases, eventually to the point where all thrust is directed out of the aft stacks).

My bad on the Hornet using turboprops. It was erroneously grouped with the Falcon in my discussion up there. The Hornet likely uses turbofans to ensure it has adequate thrust to stay aloft and move about. The Falcon cannot be a tiltrotor. Its rotors are too large to permit movement downward. It'd cut its own fuselage. It is technically a VTOL, since it' a helicopter, but VTOL is implied in designating an aircraft as a helicopter. It seems economic because it is light, cheap, and comes in high numbers. It may not necessarily be economic in terms of fuel consumption or maintenance, but it does appear economic to the war effort.   ΘяɪɸɴF22    Me    Talk    Contributions    CAG   14:03, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't seem economic to me. It's just that everything else around it is anything but economic. The only thing economic in my opinion is the Sparrowhawk, because it doesn't waste jet fuel or rocket fuel just for upward thrust or on something that flies pretty low and a little slow. It's just that Bungie keeps the usual sci-fi theme with over-exaggerated stuff, and the community gets the wrong ideas about those things, makes conspiracies about them, and in itself becomes a whole example of consensus reality.

And know I get why it's a helicopter. It isn't fixed-wing and it doesn't fly anything like the Osprey, actually. 125.60.241.224 16:02, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

When you go and make a Wiki out of it...

Everyone has to treat everything far more seriously than it really is. Do we really have to have so many analysis battles over what the Falcon is or how it would be a terrible real life military design? It's a video game vehicle, and by the looks of it, a damned useful one, they're giving us a dropship for multiplayer. Unfortunately for all the realism fans out there, Bungie are not military designers and do not appear to consult with military people much with their stuff. The majority of Halo tech would not be practical or useful if it was produced in real life. Get over it. It works in Halo, where it's meant to. If you hate the way it looks just cause it's not realistic or practical, then I don't know, pour bleach in your eyes every time you have to take a ride in it, but quit filling the comments section with complaints. Flayer92 15:12, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Chin-gun

It would appear that in the most recent build the chin-gun has been removed. I just saw this in the RVB Deja View trailer for the first time. Am I wrong? If not then I'll remove it from the article. Que Sera, Sera 02:23, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the Forge World ViDoc there is a crosshair similair to that of the Wathog driver's crosshair when they are flying aroud in the Falcon. Que Sera, Sera

Passenger Capacity

It says that it can hold 1 pilot, 2 gunners, and 4 troops in tranport area. So does this mean that you can get a kilimanjaro with one well placed Laser. Fatgunn 21:14, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it, although that would be stupid to put seven out of eight of your team members into one vehicle when the other team has a Spartan Laser. Que Sera, Sera 17:41, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, it's only seven in campaign. Less in multiplayer. --Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, UNSC Marine Corps 19:03, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

As someone else stated above, a recent video (I forget which one, and OXM one maybe) stated that the chin-gun is not in multiplayer for balancing reasons and it will have two gunners AND two more passengers who can use whatever weapon as is the norm for riding in something. Alex T Snow 12:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Falcon will most likely be able to survive a laser, but not 2, giving time to get out. OverseerTange 23:05, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a bench in between the two gunner seats that Noble 6 sometimes sits in. This brings the capacity up to 6, one pilot, two backwards facing seats in the front of the troop bay, two side facing seats used for passengers or gunners (one on each side), and one person on the bench between the two gunner seats. If all the seats were usable in Multiplayer that would have been awesome, but it only carries an unarmed pilot and two gunners. --Delta1138 SnooPING AS usual I see 12:35, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Speed compared to the Banshee?

How fast is the Falcon compared to the Banshee? Something easily testable with Forge World, but I'm curious on its speed. --Halofighter92 21:39, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

We do see it fly in the new ViDoc. When I eyeball it, it appears to be about as fast as a Banshee when it isn't using its boost. Que Sera, Sera 21:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

v-22 resemblance

i don`t see any resemblance to the v-22 other that the rotor style and even then they are a lot differentAdmiralmorris 04:16, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Awesomeness Factor

i don't know why those arguing people at the top don't like the design of the falcon. i think its an awesome idea for a propellored aircraft considering the hornet used jet engines when it never left the atmosphere which was pointless but the UNSC was going through financial troubles during the human-covenant war and was trying to spend the least it could on munitions and artillery.(mentioned throughout the halo series and books and the most memorable mention is in The Cole Protocol)and that is why they are using a cheaper to make vehicle. and you may think that the UNSC may not care about money but you should remember that they have to mass produce these for the troops.

Renaming

As a response to the rename template, I'd like to refer to the point Specops306 made here. While "Utility Helicopter" is what "UH" stands for, it's merely the aircraft's classification, not its name, which is "Falcon". As Specops said on the other page, no one, not even encyclopedic sources, call an AH-64 Apache "Attack Helicopter 64". --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (EST)

FINALLY SOMEONE MAKING SENSE!

I have no idea why we started with the Dropship 77 nonsense, but it's something that has irritated me for some time. I resisted the urge to simply move the article because I didn't want to involve myself in a flame war, but I'm really getting sick of it now. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 07:18, 23 November 2010 (EST)

So... about this name change, someone who can should drop the Falcon off the title, no other thing on this site has the nickname (Warthog, Scorpion, Hornet, Ghost, Wraith) in it. Alex T Snow 03:59, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Take a look at the above discussion, as well as this one. Aircraft (e.g. D77-TC Pelican, AC-220 Vulture, FSS-1000 Sabre) have their names in their titles because they're their actual names, not just nicknames. A Warthog is officially called a M12 LRV but the Falcon's full official title is UH-144 Falcon. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:09, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Well, okay, even if it doesn't really make any sense... Alex T Snow 02:38, 12 January 2011 (EST)

names

do they have names like pelican's do or not —This unsigned comment was made by Butthead4 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Kilo-33 and Kilo-34 are mentioned in ONI: Sword Base.-- Forerunner 12:31, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Inclusion in Halo 4?

How do we know thats its in halo 4? I haven't seen or heard on it except one grainy image of a falcons shadow. Does this comfirm it in halo 4 or not? Just curious. Siphon 117 09:32, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

I believe it was originally going to be in the game but was cut.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 23:28, 6 November 2012 (EST)